Allowed

Munendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2023A482/39190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad quashed the charge sheet, summoning order, and entire criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants. The court relied on a verified compromise deed executed between the parties and settled the dispute amicably.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet dated 04.12.2021, summoning order dated 25.04.2022, and all proceedings in Case No. 1144 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. were quashed.

Munendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39190 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Though Mr. Mohd. Waseem, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party no. 2 by filing his Vakalatnama but his name has not been shown in the cause list.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Mohd. Waseem learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as perused the materials on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 04.12.2021, summoning order dated 25.04.2022 and the entire proceedings in Case No.1144 of 2022 (State Vs. Mundndra and others) arising out of the Case Crime No.278 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Aonla, District Bareilly.

¶8

On 19.12.2022, the Court has passed following order:

¶9

"Mohd. Waseem, Advocate has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶11

By way of the instant application, the applicants have sought for quashment of the charge sheet dated 04.12.2021, summoning order dated 25.04.2022 and the entire proceeding in case no.1144 of 2022 State Vs. Mundndra and others arising out of the case crime no.278 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Aonla, District Bareilly.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that both the parties filed compromise deed (annexure no.6) to the affidavit filed in support of this application as understanding has reached between the parties to settle their dispute amicably.

¶13

The claim so raised is sustained. The present compromise deed is required to be verified physically by the trial court.

¶14

In view of above, it is directed that both the parties shall appear on 11.01.2023 before the court concerned and shall present the compromise deed before it. In the event on 11.01.2023, verification process cannot be drawn and is incomplete because of unforeseen circumstances / paucity of time of the court, then the date of next working will be fixed for its verification. In case, any compromise deed is so presented then physical verification of the parties shall be done and the order shall be passed by the court concerned thereon. In case any order is passed by the court concerned, the certified copy of the same shall be placed on record by way of filing affidavit by the present applicants.

¶15

List this case on 30.01.2023 in the additional cause list.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶17

Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Aonla, District Bareilly vide order dated 11.01.2023 has verified the compromise so entered into between the parties. Certified copies of the order of the learned Judicial MagistrateII, Aonla, District Bareilly vide order dated 11.01.2023 and the compromise have been brought on record as annexure no. 1 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of compromise so entered into between the parties, which has also been verified by the concerned Magistrate, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed.

¶19

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also not denied the aforesaid facts. On instructions received from opposite party no.2, he submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶20

This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:

¶21

B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another ; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶22

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶23

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others ; (2008) 16 SCC 1,

¶24

4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶25

5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶26

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another ; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶28

Accordingly, the proceeding of charge sheet dated 04.12.2021, summoning order dated 25.04.2022 and the entire proceeding in case no.1144 of 2022 State Vs. Mundndra and others arising out of the case crime no.278 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Aonla, District Bareilly are hereby quashed.

¶29

The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Anurag/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Yadav @ Pintu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish @ Satish Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Rajpoot and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunita Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another